Interviewing for the 2004 exit polls was the most inaccurate of any in the past five presidential elections as procedural problems compounded by the refusal of large numbers of Republican voters to be surveyed led to inflated estimates of support for John F. Kerry, according to a report released yesterday by the research firms responsible for the flawed surveys.

The exit pollsters emphasized that the flaws did not produce a single incorrect projection of the winner in a state on election night. But "there were 26 states in which the estimates produced by the exit poll data overstated the vote for John Kerry . . . and there were four states in which the exit poll estimates overstated the vote for George W. Bush," said Joe Lenski of Edison Media Research and Warren Mitofsky of Mitofsky International.

The polling firms presented their findings in a much-anticipated report to the sponsors of the Election Day surveys, a consortium of news organizations that includes ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN and the Associated Press.

Throughout election night, the national exit poll showed the Massachusetts senator leading President Bush by 51 percent to 48 percent. But when all the votes were counted, it was Bush who won by slightly less than three percentage points. Larger discrepancies between the exit poll estimates and the actual vote were found in exit polls conducted in several states. At the request of the media sponsors, Mitofsky and Lenski are continuing to examine exit polling in Ohio and Pennsylvania, two critical battleground states where the poll results were off.

The differences between the final exit poll results and the vote count revived criticisms of the exit polls fueled by consecutive election-night debacles in 2000 and 2002. They also fueled assertions that the exit poll results were accurate and that it was the vote count that was flawed or deliberately manipulated to deliver the election to Bush.

The analysis found no evidence of fraud resulting from the rigging of voting equipment, a contention made repeatedly by those who question the 2004 vote.

Lenski and Mitofsky compared the exit-polling results with the final vote tally in 1,460 precincts where interviews were conducted and vote returns were available.

"Our investigation of the differences between the exit poll estimates and the actual vote count point to one primary reason: in a number of precincts a higher than average within-precinct error most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters. . . . While the size of the average exit poll error has varied [in past elections], it was higher in 2004 than in previous years for which we have data," Lenski and Mitofsky wrote.

But they acknowledged in the report that they remain at a loss to explain precisely why Bush supporters, or Republicans generally, were more likely to refuse to be interviewed than Kerry voters.

Their investigation identified other factors that contributed to errors in the 2004 exit polls. Interviewing in precincts where polltakers were required to stand farther away from the polls were less accurate than those where interviewers had easier access to voters leaving the polling places. Poor weather conditions also pushed down cooperation rates. They suspected that there were more young people working as interviewers in 2004, which they said was another potential source of error.

Adding to the confusion, programming errors were discovered and corrected in the afternoon of Election Day, and a technical problem severely disrupted access to the system for nearly two hours late on election night.

CHRIS BURY
(Voice Over) In a report released today, Mitofsky and Company conclude that the exit poll was flawed. And the explanation is simple. Kerry voters participated in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters.

WARREN MITOFSKYOur analysis of the exit polls suggests that we had slightly better cooperation from the Kerry voters than from the Bush voters. In other words, the non-response was not even. There was some unevenness to it. And it favored Kerry.

CHRIS BURY
(Voice Over) Even Democratic pollsters such as Mark Blumenthal are satisfied with that.

Rather than needlessly bashing opponents, how about someone making an attempt to explain why this might be so? Why wouldn't Bush voters tell exit poll researchers they'd voted for him?

I might also highlight the following..

Quote:

At the request of the media sponsors, Mitofsky and Lenski are continuing to examine exit polling in Ohio and Pennsylvania, two critical battleground states where the poll results were off.

- so the states that actually swung the election haven't been fully analysed yet, and

Quote:

Adding to the confusion, programming errors were discovered and corrected in the afternoon of Election Day, and a technical problem severely disrupted access to the system for nearly two hours late on election night.

- as someone who works in IT, I'm always suspicious of any last minute fix in a critical area. The risk of regressions when working under such pressure is extremely high.

Just to add, I do think Bush was the genuine winner and more popular choice in 2004 (unlike 2000) - my problem with the 2004 election is that certain types of voting machines have ensured it is impossible to go back and verify that.

Rather than needlessly bashing opponents, how about someone making an attempt to explain why this might be so? Why wouldn't Bush voters tell exit poll researchers they'd voted for him?

I might also highlight the following..

Quote:

At the request of the media sponsors, Mitofsky and Lenski are continuing to examine exit polling in Ohio and Pennsylvania, two critical battleground states where the poll results were off.

- so the states that actually swung the election haven't been fully analysed yet, and

hypnotist, I just love that thing your do. Now what is it they call that again? Oh yeah. I remember. CRITICAL THINKING.

Too bad Joo and wannago didn't have the opportunity to get an education in that sort of analytical technique. Just think how much closer their arguments would be to something approaching rationality with kind of training behind them.

Rather than needlessly bashing opponents, how about someone making an attempt to explain why this might be so? Why wouldn't Bush voters tell exit poll researchers they'd voted for him?

I didn't start with the negative stuff on this thread.

But really the many of the anti Bush people speak for themselves. They couldn't beat him - maybe cause the arguments they made against him didn't persuade anyone. But since these people are full of themselves they won't admit their mistakes.

But seriously. Were the people conducting the exit polls biased towards Kerry? Were they wearing 'Vote Kerry' badges? Are Republicans less likely to give strangers the time of day? Are they less likely to tell someone else how they voted? Were the people voting Kerry prouder of the fact and so more willing to shout about it? Are Republicans more afraid of the rain?

I guess these pollsters already make calculations about the likelihood of the people talking to them being a representative sample - really, this is suggesting that those calculations were wrong. Now it could be that they're crap at their jobs, or subconsciously being too nice to the Democrats, but then their results wouldn't be able to back-'predict' previous elections. So it seems to point towards either a) a shift towards Bush voters being less willing/able to reveal how they voted, b) a shift towards Kerry voters being more willing/able to reveal how they voted, and/or c) some disparity between how people thought they voted, how they actually voted, and who they claimed to vote for (Bush-voting Democrats were too stupid to realise what they'd done or unwilling to admit to it, or the machines were fixed, or loads more Bush voters voted by mail than would be usual - pick your own theory). Thoughts?

I don't think Bush is dumb, most politicians are obnoxious and the anti Bush people give themselves too much credit.

There were still lots of Bush people who did answer the polls. Even the exit polls were close.I would say that maybe the Bush people were more eager to get back to work. More full time political activists might be anti Bush.

But they acknowledged in the report that they remain at a loss to explain precisely why Bush supporters, or Republicans generally, were more likely to refuse to be interviewed than Kerry voters.

I be thinking that Republican voters included a higher percentage of paranoid schizophrenics who wanted to rush home and be with loved ones in case they should get raptured up right about then. I know, I know. That is a highly improbable theory. Almost as improbable as Joo's theory.

Rather than needlessly bashing opponents, how about someone making an attempt to explain why this might be so? Why wouldn't Bush voters tell exit poll researchers they'd voted for him?

That's very easy. When you're pissed off, you're going to be more emotional and want to speak out. When you're content, you tend to not be so emotional about it.

If you are happy with your job, etc., do you walk around all day telling everyone how happy you are? Probably not.

But if you are unhappy about your job, you're going to have a much greater chance of telling others about it.

People who were happy with Bush didn't feel a need to yell it from the rooftops. People who hated him did. This is why it often seems like more people are against Bush than are for him.

The media doesn't run stories about people who are content, unless there is a total abscense of people who are ranting and raving in anger. The angry people who protest are the ones who make headlines.

Most of the Left-Wing media hates Bushie, so they try to make the dems look good. When the Liberal media runs stories to make Democrats look good, you'll see stories where they try to liken Bill Clinton to Camelot, and "feel-good" stories about Hillary Clinton being a strong woman, etc.